It shall not be poured on man’s flesh, and do not make any like it, according to its composition. It is holy. It shall be holy to you.
Not to anoint a layperson with the sacred anointing oil
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
עַל־בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מלסוך בשמן המשחה שעשה משה אלא הכהנים הגדולים והמלכים. והוא אמרו יתעלה על בשר אדם לא ייסך, ומבואר הוא שהנמשח בו אם היה מזיד חייב כרת ובשוגג חייב חטאת קבועה. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בריש כריתות. (שם, שם):
He prohibited us from anointing [anyone] besides the high priests and kings with the anointing oil that Moshe made. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "It must not be poured on the flesh of any man" (Exodus 30:32). And it is explained that one who is anointed with it - if he was volitional, he is liable for excision; and if inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Keritot. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 5.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
No applicability flags are recorded for this commandment.
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
- Karet — being 'cut off'
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative As the catalog records it: binding but inapplicable
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite As the catalog records it: textually affirmed but inapplicable
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Vita Mosis 2.146-152 The catalog describes this reception as: affirmed (restricted priestly anointing)
Josephus
- Ant. 3.205-206 The catalog describes this reception as: affirmed (priestly anointing restricted)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes corporal punishment (thirty-nine lashes) for applying a sacred oil to a non-priest, a non-violent act involving consenting adults; modern norms prohibit flogging.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; lashes for anointing a layperson constitutes such treatment under contemporary international human-rights standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality precludes corporal punishment for the non-violent application of an aromatic substance to a willing recipient; the lashes sanction is disproportionate under any post-Enlightenment sentencing framework.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction to impose malkot lapsed with the dissolution of ordained courts after 70 CE; the de jure conflict with modern punishment norms is not currently enforced.